Comparison of Relevant/Irrelevant and Modified General Question Technique Structures in a Split Counterintelligence-Suitability Phase Polygraph Examination

This 1985 field study compared the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) and Modified General Question Technique (MGQT) in operational counterintelligence screening examinations at a federal agency. The research examined whether these two commonly used testing formats differed in examiner decision outcomes and information developed during split-phase polygraph examinations for security clearance processing.

Field-based comparative study using split-phase examination design where examinees underwent both counterintelligence and suitability testing using different techniques (R/I and MGQT), with analysis of examiner decisions and information development at a federal security screening agency.

This study addressed a significant research gap by comparing polygraph techniques in actual government screening rather than specific incident testing. Using a split-phase examination design at a federal agency, researchers compared how the traditional Relevant/Irrelevant technique and Modified General Question Technique performed with the same examinees and examiners. The study found meaningful differences between techniques in both diagnostic outcomes and information yield, demonstrating that question format substantially influences screening examination results. The research provided empirical evidence that technique selection matters in high-stakes security clearance contexts where both physiological responses and elicited admissions have operational value.

The findings suggest that polygraph technique selection significantly impacts screening examination outcomes, with important implications for counterintelligence and security clearance programs regarding which testing formats to employ for different operational objectives.

Background & Context

The mid-1980s represented a critical period for polygraph screening in U.S. government security operations, particularly as debates intensified over technique validity and reliability. During the last twenty years, debates had taken place over the validity (accuracy), reliability (consistency), and utility (practicality) of existing polygraph testing techniques within the polygraph community. Most research had focused on specific incident testing rather than the screening examinations used for counterintelligence purposes.

Most research studies had investigated specific incident testing as opposed to commercial (preemployment) or government counterintelligence polygraph screening examinations, so this study compared two commonly used polygraph testing techniques in government polygraph screening examinations to determine if the techniques differ in type of examiner decision and information developed. This research addressed a significant gap in understanding how different question formats performed in the high-stakes security clearance context.

The study emerged during an era when federal agencies, particularly the National Security Agency and Department of Defense, were expanding polygraph screening programs. The comparison between the traditional Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique and the Modified General Question Technique (MGQT) was particularly timely given ongoing policy debates about polygraph expansion in counterintelligence applications.

Research Design & Methodology

Data were collected at a federal agency that screens applicants and other individuals processing for initial or continued access to classified information and/or spaces through the utilization of polygraph testing. The study employed what the authors termed a "split" examination design, where examinees underwent both counterintelligence and suitability phases using different testing techniques.

The research compared two established formats: the Relevant/Irrelevant (R/I) technique, initially developed by Leonarde Keeler (1936), and the Modified General Question Technique (MGQT), which incorporated comparison questions alongside relevant questions. This within-subjects design allowed direct comparison of how the same examiners reached decisions using different question structures with the same examinees.

Key methodological elements included:

• Field-based data collection from actual counterintelligence screening examinations at a federal security agency
• Split-phase examination format allowing comparison of both techniques on the same subjects
• Analysis of examiner decision outcomes and information yield from each technique
• Focus on operational screening contexts rather than laboratory simulations

Results & Key Findings

The study revealed important differences between how the two techniques functioned in government screening applications. The techniques differed in type of examiner decision and information developed, suggesting that question format substantially influenced both the diagnostic outcomes and the nature of security-relevant information obtained during examinations.

The R/I technique, which compares physiological responses to security-relevant questions against neutral baseline questions, contrasted with the MGQT's use of comparison questions designed to provoke responses from truthful examinees. This structural difference affected both the scoring process and the types of admissions or clarifications elicited during the examination process.

The research provided empirical evidence that technique selection matters in screening contexts, where the data provided by the individual during the pretest or posttest phase of the examination often holds as much operational value as the physiological chart readings themselves. The study's field-based approach offered rare insights into how polygraph techniques actually performed in high-stakes counterintelligence settings rather than artificial laboratory conditions.

Discussion & Significance

This research made an important contribution by directly comparing techniques in operational settings where validity and reliability questions had the most consequential implications. The finding that R/I and MGQT structures produced different decision types and information yield challenged assumptions that screening techniques were functionally interchangeable. This had immediate policy relevance for federal agencies designing and standardizing their polygraph programs.

The study's significance extended beyond its immediate findings. It demonstrated the feasibility of conducting rigorous field research in sensitive counterintelligence contexts and established methodological approaches that influenced subsequent screening validation studies. The work by Weaver and Garwood helped legitimize empirical evaluation of government polygraph practices during a period of intense congressional and scientific scrutiny.

The comparison between R/I and MGQT techniques foreshadowed broader debates about standardization in polygraph screening that continued into the 2000s. Relevant-irrelevant polygraph tests are not normally standardized for question selection or for interpretation; examiners typically interpret the test results globally by inspecting the charts; the lack of standard procedures makes the relevant-irrelevant test unsuitable for scientific evaluation; polygraph researchers generally consider the test outmoded. This study provided early empirical evidence supporting those later assessments.

Limitations & Considerations

As a field study conducted in an operational security environment, the research faced inherent constraints on experimental control and data transparency. The sensitive nature of counterintelligence screening likely limited the authors' ability to report detailed statistical analyses, specific accuracy metrics, or information about false positive and false negative rates. Without ground truth verification—knowing which examinees actually posed security risks—the study could assess decision patterns and information yield but not definitively measure accuracy.

The study's focus on a single federal agency raises questions about generalizability to other screening contexts or examiner populations. Different agencies employed varying implementation protocols, examiner training standards, and operational priorities that could influence comparative outcomes. Additionally, the "split-phase" design, while methodologically advantageous, may have introduced order effects or fatigue factors not present in standard screening examinations.

Practical Applications

For polygraph policy and practice, this research underscored that technique selection in screening contexts involves tradeoffs between standardization, information elicitation, and operational efficiency. The findings suggested that agencies should consider their primary objectives—whether emphasizing standardized physiological measurement or maximizing security-relevant disclosures—when selecting and implementing screening techniques. The study supported movements toward the MGQT and other comparison question formats that offered greater standardization potential than traditional R/I approaches.

For examinees and security clearance applicants, the research highlights how different question formats create different psychological dynamics and decision frameworks. Understanding that screening examinations serve multiple intelligence-gathering functions beyond simple deception detection—particularly through pretest and posttest interviews—remains relevant for anyone undergoing government polygraph screening. The study reinforced that admissions and clarifications often carry more weight in security adjudication than chart readings alone.